http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
TREASURY SECRETARY Paul O'Neill is hardly a star in George W. Bush's
Cabinet --- although Christie Whitman is worse -- and I've argued for six months
that he should be replaced by someone who can navigate the politics of
Washington. Steve Forbes would be an excellent choice, although he'd
probably better serve the country if he ran against Robert Torricelli in
this year's New Jersey Senate race. But after O'Neill's defiant rebuke of
Sen. Robert Byrd at last Thursday's budget committee hearing, maybe it would
be useful if he stuck around.

Byrd, absurdly dubbed the "dean" of the U.S. Senate by the media and
pols alike, is a doddering old fool who has no business making long-winded,
sanctimonious speeches that most often are a run-on of nonsequiturs. The
84-year-old pork-hungry Democrat, who's represented the United State of West
Virginia for 50 years (three terms in the House; the rest as a senator), is,
with the obvious exception of Strom Thurmond, the most senile member of
Congress and a blight on an already tattered institution.

After Byrd
insulted O'Neill by berating the former Alcoa chairman as a Beltway newcomer
(as if that's bad), saying, "You are no Alexander Hamilton," the two mixed
it up over their impoverished roots. (News flash: Byrd is no Henry Clay,
John Calhoun or Daniel Webster.)

O'Neill replied, astounding those in attendance, "Senator, I started my
life in a house without water or electricity, so I don't cede to you the
high moral ground of not knowing what life is like in a ditch." He even
threw in a dig at Byrd's affiliation with the KKK as a youth.

Byrd shot back: "I started out in life without any rungs in the bottom
ladder. I can stand toe to toe with you. I haven't walked in any corporate
boardrooms. I haven't had to turn any millions of dollars into trust
accounts. I wish I had those millions of dollars."

Byrd

What nonsense. Here's Byrd, chastising O'Neill for making money, as
opposed to dedicated elected officials who don't "[walk] in corporate
boardrooms," and then ruing the fact that he doesn't have "millions of
dollars." I imagine Byrd, while not as rich as fellow Democrats John Kerry,
Jay Rockefeller, Herb Kohl, Ted Kennedy and Jon Corzine, has staked out a
very comfortable living for his family.

O'Neill's crummy at schmoozing, which is a prerequisite for his job, but
at least he's got the guts to pierce the phony "courtesy" that's supposed to
wash over the U.S. Senate. That's a rare quality in DC and ups my estimation
of the Treasury Secretary. And shame on all the Permanent Government tv
pundits, conservatives and liberals alike, who made light of this rare
outburst.

Meanwhile, Bush's most popular Cabinet official, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld, was brilliant last Friday in lashing out at human rights
scolds, the International Committee of the Red Cross and most of Europe's
timid (and often anti-Semitic) diplomats and heads of state at a press
conference defending Bush's denial of prisoner-of-war status to the
Guantanamo Bay detainees. At a Pentagon press conference, Rumsfeld said:
"Notwithstanding the isolated pockets of international hyperventilation, we
do not treat the detainees in any manner other than a manner that is
humane... The newspaper headlines that yelled, 'Torture! What's next?
Electrodes?' and all of this rubbish was so inexcusable that it does make
one wonder why we put out any photographs, if that's the way they're going
to be treated, so irresponsibly."

The only foreign luminary who's had the fortitude to fully support the
Bush Doctrine is, not surprisingly, Margaret Thatcher. In a Feb. 11 New York
Times op-ed article she wrote: "How and when, not whether, to remove [Saddam
Hussein] are the only important questions. Again, solving the problem will
demand the best available intelligence. It will require, as in Afghanistan,
the mobilization of internal resistance. It will probably also involve a
massive use of force. America's allies, above all Britain, should extend
strong support to President Bush in the decisions he makes on Iraq... The
West as a whole needs to strengthen its resolve against rogue regimes and
upgrade its defenses. The good news is that America has a president who can
offer the leadership necessary to do so."

It makes you wonder if the Amnesty International ostriches are as
reality-impaired as Sen. Byrd. I suppose they believe that the Al Qaeda
jailbirds, who've been up-front about their desire to kill any Americans
they can, should be put up in an Allenwood-like facility where they'd have
access to computers, cellphones and tennis courts, plus the timely delivery
of Arabic newspapers each morning.

TUCKER CARLSON RETURNS

No onešs accused Esquire of possessing a scintilla of taste for at least a
generation, but a short item in its March issue headlined "The Forgotten
Victims of 9/11" was remarkable for its frivolity. Included in the
dashed-off (although given the leisurely pace of monthlies, the compendium
was probably debated over three or four happy hours) list were Chandra Levy,
sobriety, Tiger Woods, stem cells, Bill Clinton and-of course-the Bill of
Rights.

Topping the "victims" was Tucker Carlson, the Crossfire cohost and
occasional New York columnist. In fact, after a bumpy year that included a
stint at Talk and on the disastrous CNN show Spin Room, Carlson has toned
down his party-guy shtick and emerged as one of the more vital tv
commentators.

The following exchange is refreshing, as Carlson demolishes Waxman's
Enron witch hunt.

Waxman: "I haven't made any accusation against President Bush or Vice
President Cheney or anyone else, but I think we ought to know who went
before [Cheney's energy] committee. Now we do know certain facts. We know
that Ken Lay, who is the head of Enron, the CEO from Enron, had a lot of
access to the Vice President, to this energy task force, to this
administration. He interviewed people to be appointed to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. He had pretty much the say over their choices."
Carlson: "We know that? I don't think we know that at all."

Waxman: "I do believe it's true. And we also know that he went before
the Vice President on a number of occasions and urged certain policies for
the energy task force to suggest. And when we evaluated what they proposed,
there were 17 items that the administration proposed."

Carlson: "Well, this is an accusation right here. I don't know why
you're saying you're not making accusations. You just made three of them...

"Now Mr. Waxman, I had another question for you, but I just want to
back up here. You made a very serious, I think, newsworthy charge. And I
want you to substantiate it. If I understood you correctly, you said you had
evidence that Ken Lay had veto power over federal hiring in some way. What
evidence do you have that that's true."

Waxman: "Well, it's been reported in the press that Ken Lay had an
enormous amount of say over who was going to be on the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission."

Carlson: "You said he had veto power. You said he could have a person
hired or fired."

Waxman: "Well, I wouldn't doubt it. I wouldn't doubt it."

Carlson: "But you don't know it."

Waxman: "Well, I think that the person who was selected to be chairman
was his choice."

Carlson: "So you're just throwing the charge out there without any
evidence of it. Because it's a serious charge that he's picking federal
employees. I mean, come on."

Waxman: "Oh, you doubt it? Do you know how many people came out of Enron
that worked in this administration?"

Carlson: "Well, hold on. But you were just giving this speech about how
we need evidence. We're not going to throw out charges. And you threw out a
charge. And you've got no evidence to substantiate it."

Waxman: "Well, I read it in the press. And no one has refuted it."

Carlson: "Are you a lawyer? I mean, is that how things work? No one
refutes it, so it must be true?"

Waxman: "Are you a judge?"

Carlson: "I'm not, but I'm not the one giving a speech about evidence.
You are."

There's little doubt that some Enron and Arthur Andersen executives will
face criminal charges. But the grandstanding of congressmen like Waxman,
Billy Tauzin, James Greenwood and Gary Ackerman, who not only preen before
the tv cameras during their investigations, but make the round of Sunday
talk shows, is bound to complicate the prosecution of corporate swindlers.
It's no wonder Kenneth Lay will take the Fifth this week: after his protege
Jeffrey Skilling testified last week, admittedly providing little
information, Tauzin suggested on Face the Nation that he could face perjury
counts.

Typically, in trolling for votes, these lawmakers are simply making
matters
worse.

JWR contributor "Mugger" -- aka Russ Smith -- is the editor-in-chief and CEO of New York Press (www.nypress.com). Send your comments to him by clicking here.